A review petition sought reconsideration of an earlier order confirming a temporary injunction in a suit over sale consideration and withdrawal of funds. The court held all contentions and documents had been considered in the detailed prior judgment, that review cannot substitute an appellate re-examination, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO.166 OF 2024
IN MFA NO.181/2024 (CPC) MFA NO.173/2024 (CPC) MFA NO.211/2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SURAJ S., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
AND:
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI J.P.DARSHAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO PERUSE AND REVIEW THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED IN THE MFA NO.181/2024 (CPC) C/W. MFA NO.173/2024 (CPC), MFA NO.211/2024(CPC) AND ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONERS THEREIN.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
Court for granting temporary order of injunction in O.S.No.5438/2023. This Court having considered the submission
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
of both the learned counsel, passed a detailed order on 15.03.2024 confirming the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the M.F.As.
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
grounds which have been urged in paragraph No.7 of the memorandum of petition and categorically contend that the documents of Annexures – P, Q, R, S and T1, which were filed along with M.F.As. were not considered while passing the order. Those documents were also placed before the Trial Court and the Trial Court made an observation that no such documents are placed before the Court. In view of production of those documents, which have not been considered by this Court, this Court can invoke the review provision invoking Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-U, copy of the relevant portion of Form No.26AS of M/s. Jindal Steels for the assessment year 2013-14, which shows that the respondent even remitted TDS on 14.09.2013 after late Mohanlal Jindal retired from the respondent on 24.07.2013 and when such TDS is made, now cannot contend that no such sale consideration has been paid. The learned counsel contend that for a period of more than a decade they kept quiet with regard to the non-payment of sale consideration and all these aspects have not been considered by this Court while passing the order. Hence, the review jurisdiction has to be exercised.
his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PREM SINGH AND OTHERS v. BIRBAL AND OTHERS
reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14, wherein it is discussed with regard to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and Article 59 of the Limitation Act when the relief is sought and also with regard to the suit for cancellation of instrument is based on the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.
the Apex Court in the case of RAJENDRA SINGH v. LT. GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND
OTHERS reported in AIR 2006 SC 75 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.15, 16 and 17, wherein it is discussed with regard to the scope of review.
Apex Court in the case of S.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY v. V. NARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS reported in LAWS(SC)-
2022-8-62 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.18 and 19, wherein it is discussed with regard to the grounds of review and when the review is maintainable. The
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.23 of the judgment, wherein it is discussed with regard to justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers.
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
there is injustice caused by passing such an order, the Court can review the order passed by this Court.
NARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 1034 and brought to the notice of this Court the application for review of judgment, which has been discussed in paragraph Nos.16 to 21, wherein also discussed with regard to the power of review can be exercised for correction of a
mistake, but not to substitute a view. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.22 and 24 of the judgment, wherein discussion was made with regard to under what circumstances, the grounds for review are maintainable.
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
Rs.3,67,38,841/- from Mohanlal Jindal on 31.03.2008 and an amount of Rs.15,10,451/- on 31.03.2009 and final additional contribution dated 22.07.2013 i.e., an amount of Rs.12,26,59,601/-. The total investment is Rs.16,09,04,806/in lieu of contribution and investment and M/s. Jindal Steels investment Rs.2,68,00,000/- on 02.02.2007 and on 28.05.2007 Rs.4 Crores i.e., sale consideration for purchase of larger extent and on 28.05.2007 to the tune of Rs.1,28,02,115/- payment of stamp duty and cess and registration fees for purchase of larger extent and several offer credits and debits between M/s. Jindal Steels and M/s. Rest House Developers and total investment with interest due as on 22.07.2013 is to the extent of Rs.12,26,59,601/- and the said amount was refunded on 22.07.2013 and the said amount is not withdrawal of the amount as contended by the respondent. The learned counsel contend that TDS paid on the refund of investments on 14.09.2013 is to the tune of Rs.15,31,225/-. The learned counsel contend that the Court has to take note of the conduct of the respondent and the respondent belatedly approached the Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction after lapse of a decade.
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
considering the M.F.As. while passing the order dated 15.03.2024 and taken note of the judgments which have been referred while arguing the matter on merits. The Court also taken note of the fact that additional contribution of Rs.12,26,59,601/- transferred by the defendant on 22.07.2013. There is no dispute with regard to the registration of the sale deed as well as registration of the construction agreement and the same is also taken note of. With regard to the payment of TDS also the same is considered in paragraph No.9 when reference was made while passing the order.
Having considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent, in paragraph No.36, detailed discussion was made with regard to the payment of Rs.12,26,59,601/-. This Court also taken note of the transfer of the said amount from the account of the defendant’s firm M/s. Jindal without the knowledge of partners of plaintiff’s firm and misrepresenting to him and other partner that defendant shall relinquish his contribution in lieu of 2 apartment conveyed. This Court taken note of the judgment of Dahiben’s case and distinguished the same and held that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case when fraud has been alleged and comes to the conclusion that the fraud and misrepresentation has been alleged and re-transfer of
the amount also not disputed. But the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said amount was paid in favour of M/s.Jindal Steels with regard to the investment made by the same. No doubt, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said amount was paid two days prior to the registration of the document and the plaintiff/respondent approached the Court after a decade and the same is a matter of trial and this Court cannot decide with regard to the conduct of the parties is concerned and there are
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
sale deeds as well as registered documents of construction agreement.
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
amount has been withdrawn even prior to execution of the sale deed and hence comes to the conclusion that no error has been committed by the Trial Court. When such being the case and when all the materials are considered by the Court, the question of invoking review jurisdiction does not arise. Only in a case where injustice is caused, under such circumstances the Court can review its order apart from the mistake apparent on record. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that total amount of Rs.16,09,04,806/- was paid and withdrawn Rs.12,26,59,601/- and remaining amount of around Rs.4 Crores is still vest with the respondent and these are the aspects to be considered by the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits. Merely because Rs.4 Crores vest with the respondent,
this Court cannot interfere at this stage with regard to the passing of the earlier order. When the order has been passed considering all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent and detailed order has been passed which runs to 40 pages, nonmentioning of the documents in the reasoning cannot be a ground to review the order when the contentions are raised with regard to documents and reasoning is given analyzing the material on record, hence, I do not find any ground to invoke
NC: 2024:KHC:20191 RP No. 166 of 2024
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the judgment of this Court and
no such ground is made out to review the order.
following:
ORDER
The review petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the documents and contentions said to have been overlooked constitute a mistake apparent on record justifying review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC?
Whether the earlier judgment dated 15.03.2024 confirming the trial court's temporary injunction order can be reviewed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem Singh v. BirbalRelied on¶4
(2006) 5 SCC 353 · Who else cites this
Rajendra Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar IslandsRelied on¶5
AIR 2006 SC 75 · Who else cites this
S.Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana ReddyRelied on¶6
LAWS(SC)-2022-8-62
Central Board of Direct Taxes v. Anuradha GoyalRelied on¶7
LAWS (KAR)-2022-4-145
Additional District Magistrate, Hubli Dharwad City v. Chandrakant BaddiRelied on¶7
LAWS (KAR)2007-3-66
Selection Committee v. N.R. NagrajReferred¶7
AIR 1939 MADRAS 293 · Who else cites this
Sajida v. Bibi JanRelied on¶8
LAWS (KAR)-2024-3-22
S.Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana ReddyRelied on¶9
2022 SCC Online SC 1034 · Who else cites this
Kaliaperumal v. RajagopalRelied on¶10
(2009) 4 SCC 193 · Who else cites this
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Navigant Technologies Private LimitedRelied on¶10
(2021) 7 SCC 657 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sushil Kumar Jindal
Amrita Agarwal
Dimple Bajaj
M/s. Rest House Developers
H.P.Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
